flipdewaf wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Sermons wrote:

I read a great article from leehamnews a while back about the advantages of a WB fuselage more especially for an MOM aircraft. One thing that struck me was the fact that it mentioned how a longer NB fuselage ( 250+ seats ) needed to be stiffer/heavier to counteract the bending moment forces from the centre (something an equivalent shorter WB f.... wouldnt experience as much ) and in some cases due to this it was possible to have the WB be the lighter one of the two.

The NB landing gear would also have to be longer (aka 757) to avoid tail strikes and accommodate a steaper take off performance. A longer MLG would add more weight to the 250+ seat NB jet.

Obviously the NB MOM design would enjoy a lower seat cost due to it's slender fuselage experiencing less drag, but an equivalent WB would have more revenue potential due to faster turn around times (shorter boarding and deboarding times) , and have more cargo potential.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/08/analy ... more-36286


Anyway I doubt the TBW design could accommodate up to 250 seats, because it will use slender wings and will will need to be as light as possible. Will probably be as large as the MAX 9 (luckily the MAX 10) at best.

A widebody MOM could cover the 240 to 280 seats segment and the TBW could cover 130 to 240 (MAXPAX) . Boeing can still have time to launch the WB MOM in 2025-2027 with EIS in the early 2030s more especially with the Ultrafan now picking up pace ( and the 777-9 and Max10/7 certified by then) .. Then after this they could start work on the 737 replacement, or at least should be in the early years of dev.

The WB MOM could also replace the 787-8, and allow Boeing to focus only on the more profitable/ less costly 9 and 10. Not only that, the MOM could also fly longer, faster (0.85) and with alot of cargo..

If that is your reasoning? then the 797 should start as a 767-200 sized airplane and move up from there. t should have a center wing box that can house a center tank for extended range fuel and should have TATL range from Chicago to London or Frankfurt and Denver to Hawaii.it should not infringe on the 787 or the 777 in Range or passenger capacity,

The problem for WB aircraft is they are heavier per unit floor area up to around 55-60m. Weight is the enemy.

It is often said that it takes longer to turn around the long narrow body but I have yet to see any evidence or data to show it in practise.

viewtopic.php?t=1457749

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also the long turn around times are in my eyes just distraction from the fact that people want a WB but deep down now it will be a NB. If it is long, there is no rule that the boarding has to be done at the L1 door, if it is that long boarding can be done at the L2 if necessary (like it was possible with some A321).

Also short turn around times are not a goal by most airlines, most airlines operate banks and have the aircraft on the ground longer anyway.

And third, we already see turn around time limitations with the newest engine generation (Hawaiian and the A220 vs 717 comes to mind). Chances are, that the next gen engines might even run hotter and need a longer cool down time, so turn around times will be limited by engine cool down and not boarding/deboarding times).

Not building the MOM more or less ensured that Boeing would become #2 in the business. Not all that terrible, but not good either. Of course a low profit MOM could have been the straw on the camels back, along with the 787, MAX disasters, the much delayed 777X, 748, and MAX 7 and 10 all happening.

FluidFlow wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

If that is your reasoning? then the 797 should start as a 767-200 sized airplane and move up from there. t should have a center wing box that can house a center tank for extended range fuel and should have TATL range from Chicago to London or Frankfurt and Denver to Hawaii.it should not infringe on the 787 or the 777 in Range or passenger capacity,

The problem for WB aircraft is they are heavier per unit floor area up to around 55-60m. Weight is the enemy.

It is often said that it takes longer to turn around the long narrow body but I have yet to see any evidence or data to show it in practise.

viewtopic.php?t=1457749

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also the long turn around times are in my eyes just distraction from the fact that people want a WB but deep down now it will be a NB. If it is long, there is no rule that the boarding has to be done at the L1 door, if it is that long boarding can be done at the L2 if necessary (like it was possible with some A321).

Also short turn around times are not a goal by most airlines, most airlines operate banks and have the aircraft on the ground longer anyway.

And third, we already see turn around time limitations with the newest engine generation (Hawaiian and the A220 vs 717 comes to mind). Chances are, that the next gen engines might even run hotter and need a longer cool down time, so turn around times will be limited by engine cool down and not boarding/deboarding times).

Of course a single longer NB or a dozen of them taking around 5-10 additional minutes to board and another 5-10 to deboard would look like nothing , but let that number reach 30 or more and that sums up to hours .

Turn around times may not be a concern for airlines but they are for airports , which BTW are getting more and more crowded each and every year. So just imagine the congestion 10-20 years from now , with the world moving away from larger and fewer aircrft to smaller and more aircrft instead .

As I said before thou , longer NBs have their own trade offs , but their economic benefits are impressive and airlines will find a way to make them work. Not sure how airports will handle alot more NBs in place of fewer larger WBs thou.

Sermons wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The problem for WB aircraft is they are heavier per unit floor area up to around 55-60m. Weight is the enemy.

It is often said that it takes longer to turn around the long narrow body but I have yet to see any evidence or data to show it in practise.

viewtopic.php?t=1457749

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also the long turn around times are in my eyes just distraction from the fact that people want a WB but deep down now it will be a NB. If it is long, there is no rule that the boarding has to be done at the L1 door, if it is that long boarding can be done at the L2 if necessary (like it was possible with some A321).

Also short turn around times are not a goal by most airlines, most airlines operate banks and have the aircraft on the ground longer anyway.

And third, we already see turn around time limitations with the newest engine generation (Hawaiian and the A220 vs 717 comes to mind). Chances are, that the next gen engines might even run hotter and need a longer cool down time, so turn around times will be limited by engine cool down and not boarding/deboarding times).

Of course a single longer NB or a dozen of them taking around 5-10 additional minutes to board and another 5-10 to deboard would look like nothing , but let that number reach 30 or more and that sums up to hours .

Turn around times may not be a concern for airlines but they are for airports , which BTW are getting more and more crowded each and every year. So just imagine the congestion 10-20 years from now , with the world moving away from larger and fewer aircrft to smaller and more aircrft instead .

As I said before thou , longer NBs have their own trade offs , but their economic benefits are impressive and airlines will find a way to make them work. Not sure how airports will handle alot more NBs in place of fewer larger WBs thou.

A $50m jet amortised over 12 years is about $8/minute. 10minutes longer for boarding (I still haven’t seen any evidence that boarding actually any quicker) is equivalent to about 35gallons of jet-a. The larger and heavier per pec wide body will then burn more fuel per pax, cost more in landing and navigation charges and cost more to buy.

The build cost of an aircraft (or any item for that matter) varies with complexity, mass and build rate. That means that the wide body aircraft has an inherent disadvantage in that regard.

You say about airport capacity but let’s not forget that the wide body plane actually takes up more space at the airport and because it’s also heavier per pax it (generally) costs more too.

A twin aisle doesn’t pencil out till about 55m length and only really makes business sense at the scale just below the 788 anyway.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

A $50m jet amortised over 12 years is about $8/minute. 10minutes longer for boarding (I still haven’t seen any evidence that boarding actually any quicker) is equivalent to about 35gallons of jet-a. The larger and heavier per pec wide body will then burn more fuel per pax, cost more in landing and navigation charges and cost more to buy.

The build cost of an aircraft (or any item for that matter) varies with complexity, mass and build rate. That means that the wide body aircraft has an inherent disadvantage in that regard.

You say about airport capacity but let’s not forget that the wide body plane actually takes up more space at the airport and because it’s also heavier per pax it (generally) costs more too.

A twin aisle doesn’t pencil out till about 55m length and only really makes business sense at the scale just below the 788 anyway.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except the fact that most airports don't have gates designed for a 55m narrowbody, which would probably need mid 40s in wingspan. American airports do tend to have some 757/767 gates left, but internationally not so much. Internationally, narrowbody gates have been standardized at 36m wide, and ~45m long. So at most airports, a narrowbody MOM would take up a widebody gate, nullifying the gatesize advantage. People remember the 757-200 for being over-powered for it's size, but that same engine on the 54.4m 757-300 means a takeoff distance and time around the same as a widebody. Plus you're ignoring one of the key reasons the 767 was such a successful MOM, the ability to carry substantial cargo (volume and weight), one of the key advantages of a widebody. The 757-300 only sold 55 units, compared to 128/121/138 for the 767-200/200ER/KC46(48.51m), 104/583/280 for the 767-300/300ER/300F(54.94m), and 255 for the A310(46.66m). The Boeing 767 is still in production for freight and tanker versions, whereas the Boeing 757 stopped production all the way back in 2004. I think the historical business case pretty conclusively proves that the MOM space favors widebodies, for passenger capacity above 240s.

What happened to the concept?
Well, Boeing had the MAX, the inability to make 787s reliably, the inability to make 737s reliably, the inability to get the 777-X certified in any reasonable time, the inability to get the 737-10 and -7 certified in any reasonable time, and the inability to develop a space capsule to carry people without overrunning by years and years. And those are just the problems I'm aware of, I believe they also have issues in their military aircraft. So their ability to execute, and their financials, are severely compromised. So I wouldn't expect a 797 anytime soon.

flipdewaf wrote:

Sermons wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Also the long turn around times are in my eyes just distraction from the fact that people want a WB but deep down now it will be a NB. If it is long, there is no rule that the boarding has to be done at the L1 door, if it is that long boarding can be done at the L2 if necessary (like it was possible with some A321).

Also short turn around times are not a goal by most airlines, most airlines operate banks and have the aircraft on the ground longer anyway.

And third, we already see turn around time limitations with the newest engine generation (Hawaiian and the A220 vs 717 comes to mind). Chances are, that the next gen engines might even run hotter and need a longer cool down time, so turn around times will be limited by engine cool down and not boarding/deboarding times).

Of course a single longer NB or a dozen of them taking around 5-10 additional minutes to board and another 5-10 to deboard would look like nothing , but let that number reach 30 or more and that sums up to hours .

Turn around times may not be a concern for airlines but they are for airports , which BTW are getting more and more crowded each and every year. So just imagine the congestion 10-20 years from now , with the world moving away from larger and fewer aircrft to smaller and more aircrft instead .

As I said before thou , longer NBs have their own trade offs , but their economic benefits are impressive and airlines will find a way to make them work. Not sure how airports will handle alot more NBs in place of fewer larger WBs thou.

A $50m jet amortised over 12 years is about $8/minute. 10minutes longer for boarding (I still haven’t seen any evidence that boarding actually any quicker) is equivalent to about 35gallons of jet-a. The larger and heavier per pec wide body will then burn more fuel per pax, cost more in landing and navigation charges and cost more to buy.

The build cost of an aircraft (or any item for that matter) varies with complexity, mass and build rate. That means that the wide body aircraft has an inherent disadvantage in that regard.

You say about airport capacity but let’s not forget that the wide body plane actually takes up more space at the airport and because it’s also heavier per pax it (generally) costs more too.

A twin aisle doesn’t pencil out till about 55m length and only really makes business sense at the scale just below the 788 anyway.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 767 and to a lesser extent the A300 were pretty successful for aircraft that didn't "pencil out" or make "business sense" as you put it.

That said, I really hate the thought of far more 8 to 10 hour flights on a 3 X 3 narrow body, the worst configuration legal/possible for passengers. I guess it doesn't matter, if they are more efficient we will be stuck with them.

Jetport wrote:

The 767 and to a lesser extent the A300 were pretty successful for aircraft that didn't "pencil out" or make "business sense" as you put it.

Huh? When did I say the 767 or A300 didn’t pencil out or make business sense? Very strange.

Jetport wrote:

That said, I really hate the thought of far more 8 to 10 hour flights on a 3 X 3 narrow body, the worst configuration legal/possible for passengers. I guess it doesn't matter, if they are more efficient we will be stuck with them.

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s not true, this isn’t a religion.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Jetport wrote:

The 767 and to a lesser extent the A300 were pretty successful for aircraft that didn't "pencil out" or make "business sense" as you put it.

Huh? When did I say the 767 or A300 didn’t pencil out or make business sense? Very strange.

Jetport wrote:

That said, I really hate the thought of far more 8 to 10 hour flights on a 3 X 3 narrow body, the worst configuration legal/possible for passengers. I guess it doesn't matter, if they are more efficient we will be stuck with them.

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s not true, this isn’t a religion.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From your original post: "A twin aisle doesn’t pencil out till about 55m length and only really makes business sense at the scale just below the 788 anyway." By your logic the 767-200 and A310 didn't "pencil out" or make "business sense"

Jetport wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Jetport wrote:

The 767 and to a lesser extent the A300 were pretty successful for aircraft that didn't "pencil out" or make "business sense" as you put it.

Huh? When did I say the 767 or A300 didn’t pencil out or make business sense? Very strange.

Jetport wrote:

That said, I really hate the thought of far more 8 to 10 hour flights on a 3 X 3 narrow body, the worst configuration legal/possible for passengers. I guess it doesn't matter, if they are more efficient we will be stuck with them.

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s not true, this isn’t a religion.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From your original post: "A twin aisle doesn’t pencil out till about 55m length and only really makes business sense at the scale just below the 788 anyway." By your logic the 767-200 and A310 didn't "pencil out" or make "business sense"

The 767 and A300(310) where designed with limitations that do not exist anymore, I already wrote that, back in the days there were no engines available to make a twin larger or have more range. Even look at the A330 and B777, they only became capable in the mid 2000s, before they could hardly be called long haul aircraft. There was no way back in the 60s and 70s to design a larger WB (or NB for that matter) than what was on offer, because engine thrust limited the MTOW. So trade offs had to be made.

These trade offs are long gone, so why compromise on size if you do not have to?

And please, 3x3x3 is as horrible if not even worse than 3x3. I had a more pleasant flight on a Delta 757 from CDG to RDU than on 787s. Only the good old A330 beats that but unfortunately there are less and less.

FluidFlow wrote:

Jetport wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Huh? When did I say the 767 or A300 didn’t pencil out or make business sense? Very strange.




Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s not true, this isn’t a religion.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From your original post: "A twin aisle doesn’t pencil out till about 55m length and only really makes business sense at the scale just below the 788 anyway." By your logic the 767-200 and A310 didn't "pencil out" or make "business sense"

The 767 and A300(310) where designed with limitations that do not exist anymore, I already wrote that, back in the days there were no engines available to make a twin larger or have more range. Even look at the A330 and B777, they only became capable in the mid 2000s, before they could hardly be called long haul aircraft. There was no way back in the 60s and 70s to design a larger WB (or NB for that matter) than what was on offer, because engine thrust limited the MTOW. So trade offs had to be made.

These trade offs are long gone, so why compromise on size if you do not have to?

And please, 3x3x3 is as horrible if not even worse than 3x3. I had a more pleasant flight on a Delta 757 from CDG to RDU than on 787s. Only the good old A330 beats that but unfortunately there are less and less.

Indeed, the A300->762->763->A330->77E->77W were all the most capable twins that could be made based on available engine thrust at their time, yes the 767/A300 could haul freight in their bellies but not as well as the newer models.

Dedicated freight aircraft have a subtly different dynamic to passenger aircraft in that the revenue potential is derived from volume whereas for pax it’s based on floor area. This distinction reveals itself in a lower optimal fineness ratio for optimal weight per unit volume than pax optimal for weight per unit area. For drag there is an optimum for volume per unit drag rise whereas for floor area the optimum asymptotically approaches a level with increasing length.

The business case did pencil out, It doesn’t any longer.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rbavfan wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

Sermons wrote:

I read a great article from leehamnews a while back about the advantages of a WB fuselage more especially for an MOM aircraft. One thing that struck me was the fact that it mentioned how a longer NB fuselage ( 250+ seats ) needed to be stiffer/heavier to counteract the bending moment forces from the centre (something an equivalent shorter WB f.... wouldnt experience as much ) and in some cases due to this it was possible to have the WB be the lighter one of the two.

The NB landing gear would also have to be longer (aka 757) to avoid tail strikes and accommodate a steaper take off performance. A longer MLG would add more weight to the 250+ seat NB jet.

Obviously the NB MOM design would enjoy a lower seat cost due to it's slender fuselage experiencing less drag, but an equivalent WB would have more revenue potential due to faster turn around times (shorter boarding and deboarding times) , and have more cargo potential.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/08/analy ... more-36286


Anyway I doubt the TBW design could accommodate up to 250 seats, because it will use slender wings and will will need to be as light as possible. Will probably be as large as the MAX 9 (luckily the MAX 10) at best.

A widebody MOM could cover the 240 to 280 seats segment and the TBW could cover 130 to 240 (MAXPAX) . Boeing can still have time to launch the WB MOM in 2025-2027 with EIS in the early 2030s more especially with the Ultrafan now picking up pace ( and the 777-9 and Max10/7 certified by then) .. Then after this they could start work on the 737 replacement, or at least should be in the early years of dev.

The WB MOM could also replace the 787-8, and allow Boeing to focus only on the more profitable/ less costly 9 and 10. Not only that, the MOM could also fly longer, faster (0.85) and with alot of cargo..

I understand what leeham says and your opinion but Airbus already countered this with the A321XLR. Tis is the excat segment that Boeing lost by not advancing the 757 which needs to re-coup. A WB/Twin aisle will increse cabin crew levels on the plane even though it might be shorter and this is only one of the many disadvantages.

A B737 clean sheet replacement starting within the 8 all the way to the -300 (757) might be the best option but we might never know for now.

Just how does a WB twin replacement for the 757 size increase cabin crews over the 757 if they seat similar numbers. After all 1 FA for every 50 seats stays the same.

For a start, think about: two aisles to serve rather than one

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Aviation is heading into a new era.
Aircraft are going to get significantly longer to carry hydrogen tanks in the back.
We will see awkward designs before they converge towards similar shapes.
The fuselages may extend far behind the tailplane.

We could see cargo compartments moved into the wings while underfloor decks get filled with hydrogen ULD's.

Hydrogen will more than likely be carried in te fuselage. the weight and Balance of the airplane would be severely compromised. If it's going to BE carried? It will be in a much larger wing and center wing Box where the center tank would be even if that center wing box is increased in size with the fuselage fit over it.

Sermons wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Eventually there will be a 797, I think it will be a clean sheet 737 replacement starting at 160 seats and going to 250 seats across several different versions

Don’t see Boeing actually building a real MOM, 757 replacement

I read a great article from leehamnews a while back about the advantages of a WB fuselage more especially for an MOM aircraft. One thing that struck me was the fact that it mentioned how a longer NB fuselage ( 250+ seats ) needed to be stiffer/heavier to counteract the bending moment forces from the centre (something an equivalent shorter WB f.... wouldnt experience as much ) and in some cases due to this it was possible to have the WB be the lighter one of the two.

The NB landing gear would also have to be longer (aka 757) to avoid tail strikes and accommodate a steaper take off performance. A longer MLG would add more weight to the 250+ seat NB jet.

Obviously the NB MOM design would enjoy a lower seat cost due to it's slender fuselage experiencing less drag, but an equivalent WB would have more revenue potential due to faster turn around times (shorter boarding and deboarding times) , and have more cargo potential.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/08/analy ... more-36286


Anyway I doubt the TBW design could accommodate up to 250 seats, because it will use slender wings and will will need to be as light as possible. Will probably be as large as the MAX 9 (luckily the MAX 10) at best.

A widebody MOM could cover the 240 to 280 seats segment and the TBW could cover 130 to 240 (MAXPAX) . Boeing can still have time to launch the WB MOM in 2025-2027 with EIS in the early 2030s more especially with the Ultrafan now picking up pace ( and the 777-9 and Max10/7 certified by then) .. Then after this they could start work on the 737 replacement, or at least should be in the early years of dev.

The WB MOM could also replace the 787-8, and allow Boeing to focus only on the more profitable/ less on a costly 9 and 10. Not only that, the MOM could also fly longer, faster (0.85) and with alot of cargo..

the landing gear would probably have to be longer to accommodate the larger fan engines they would have to carry for a757 sized replacement and even for a 767 sized replacement. it might not be GE90 sized but it will sure be larger than any RB211 or PW2040 in the fan if not the core as well.

Chemist wrote:

What happened to the concept?
Well, Boeing had the MAX, the inability to make 787s reliably, the inability to make 737s reliably, the inability to get the 777-X certified in any reasonable time, the inability to get the 737-10 and -7 certified in any reasonable time, and the inability to develop a space capsule to carry people without overrunning by years and years. And those are just the problems I'm aware of, I believe they also have issues in their military aircraft. So their ability to execute, and their financials, are severely compromised. So I wouldn't expect a 797 anytime soon.

I don't think anyone here expects the 797 anytime soon (before 2030) atleast with regards to the EIS. The launch could be anywhere between 2025-2030 thou depending on Boeing's state by then ( financially or product wise. ).

If some of those issues you mentioned are resolved sooner , with certification of the MAX10, 777-9 , MAX7 achieved before 2026 and rework of the 787 completed by that same time, then Boeing is free to start working towards the launch, dev and eventual entry into service of the 797 .

I think there's just not much demand from Airlines to get 7-abreast widebody with 3,000nmi range. The next generation aircraft have to be very very efficient. Adding extra aisle for 1 extra seat per row doesn't seem to be efficient.

strfyr51 wrote:

Sermons wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Eventually there will be a 797, I think it will be a clean sheet 737 replacement starting at 160 seats and going to 250 seats across several different versions

Don’t see Boeing actually building a real MOM, 757 replacement

I read a great article from leehamnews a while back about the advantages of a WB fuselage more especially for an MOM aircraft. One thing that struck me was the fact that it mentioned how a longer NB fuselage ( 250+ seats ) needed to be stiffer/heavier to counteract the bending moment forces from the centre (something an equivalent shorter WB f.... wouldnt experience as much ) and in some cases due to this it was possible to have the WB be the lighter one of the two.

The NB landing gear would also have to be longer (aka 757) to avoid tail strikes and accommodate a steaper take off performance. A longer MLG would add more weight to the 250+ seat NB jet.

Obviously the NB MOM design would enjoy a lower seat cost due to it's slender fuselage experiencing less drag, but an equivalent WB would have more revenue potential due to faster turn around times (shorter boarding and deboarding times) , and have more cargo potential.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/08/analy ... more-36286


Anyway I doubt the TBW design could accommodate up to 250 seats, because it will use slender wings and will will need to be as light as possible. Will probably be as large as the MAX 9 (luckily the MAX 10) at best.

A widebody MOM could cover the 240 to 280 seats segment and the TBW could cover 130 to 240 (MAXPAX) . Boeing can still have time to launch the WB MOM in 2025-2027 with EIS in the early 2030s more especially with the Ultrafan now picking up pace ( and the 777-9 and Max10/7 certified by then) .. Then after this they could start work on the 737 replacement, or at least should be in the early years of dev.

The WB MOM could also replace the 787-8, and allow Boeing to focus only on the more profitable/ less on a costly 9 and 10. Not only that, the MOM could also fly longer, faster (0.85) and with alot of cargo..

the landing gear would probably have to be longer to accommodate the larger fan engines they would have to carry for a757 sized replacement and even for a 767 sized replacement. it might not be GE90 sized but it will sure be larger than any RB211 or PW2040 in the fan if not the core as well.

“We have a narrowbody engine that has a fan similar to the size of the GE9X.” It’s a narrowbody engine able to move the air the size of an engine on the 777. But there is no casing around it, so it’s not that much bigger in diameter than today’s LEAP, Hegeman said. If you combine it with a core that is the size of a business jet engine, moving the amount of air of a 9X engine but very efficiently with narrowbody level-type thrust. “That is what RISE is.”

https://leehamnews.com/2023/05/30/ponti ... over-time/


I believe the advantage of the RISE , will be the large fan protruding over the wing right?Not sure thou how that will affect the performance of the wing itself but this should reduce landing gear height requements by a non-insignificant amount

Sermons wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Sermons wrote:

I read a great article from leehamnews a while back about the advantages of a WB fuselage more especially for an MOM aircraft. One thing that struck me was the fact that it mentioned how a longer NB fuselage ( 250+ seats ) needed to be stiffer/heavier to counteract the bending moment forces from the centre (something an equivalent shorter WB f.... wouldnt experience as much ) and in some cases due to this it was possible to have the WB be the lighter one of the two.

The NB landing gear would also have to be longer (aka 757) to avoid tail strikes and accommodate a steaper take off performance. A longer MLG would add more weight to the 250+ seat NB jet.

Obviously the NB MOM design would enjoy a lower seat cost due to it's slender fuselage experiencing less drag, but an equivalent WB would have more revenue potential due to faster turn around times (shorter boarding and deboarding times) , and have more cargo potential.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/08/analy ... more-36286


Anyway I doubt the TBW design could accommodate up to 250 seats, because it will use slender wings and will will need to be as light as possible. Will probably be as large as the MAX 9 (luckily the MAX 10) at best.

A widebody MOM could cover the 240 to 280 seats segment and the TBW could cover 130 to 240 (MAXPAX) . Boeing can still have time to launch the WB MOM in 2025-2027 with EIS in the early 2030s more especially with the Ultrafan now picking up pace ( and the 777-9 and Max10/7 certified by then) .. Then after this they could start work on the 737 replacement, or at least should be in the early years of dev.

The WB MOM could also replace the 787-8, and allow Boeing to focus only on the more profitable/ less on a costly 9 and 10. Not only that, the MOM could also fly longer, faster (0.85) and with alot of cargo..

the landing gear would probably have to be longer to accommodate the larger fan engines they would have to carry for a757 sized replacement and even for a 767 sized replacement. it might not be GE90 sized but it will sure be larger than any RB211 or PW2040 in the fan if not the core as well.

“We have a narrowbody engine that has a fan similar to the size of the GE9X.” It’s a narrowbody engine able to move the air the size of an engine on the 777. But there is no casing around it, so it’s not that much bigger in diameter than today’s LEAP, Hegeman said. If you combine it with a core that is the size of a business jet engine, moving the amount of air of a 9X engine but very efficiently with narrowbody level-type thrust. “That is what RISE is.”

https://leehamnews.com/2023/05/30/ponti ... over-time/


I believe the advantage of the RISE , will be the large fan protruding over the wing right?Not sure thou how that will affect the performance of the wing itself but this should reduce landing gear height requements by a non-insignificant amount

Isn’t that just a turbo prop?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fundamental dilemma still remains, and that is that the cost of developing a clean sheet new design is so mind-bogglingly massive that the performance improvement has to be really substantial in order to justify it. So far Boeing has been unable to close the business case for a clean sheet replacement for the 737. I do not see any development on the horizon that will change that. Boeing has said that they need about a 20% increase in efficiency to justify a clean sheet design. There are three potential sources for improvement; engines, weight, and aerodynamics. At this point, improvements in weight and aerodynamics alone are highly unlikely to be sufficient to get that necessary 20%. And unless a new engine design emerges that will not fit under the wing like current engines putting new engines on the old airframe will always be a cheaper and still practical option to achieve most of the possible improvement. This applies to both Boeing and Airbus. And here is where Airbus has a permanent advantage. Due to the fact that when the 737 was originally designed one of the design goals was to have it as close to the ground as possible to speed loading and unloading to facilitate fast turnarounds, the landing gear is very short, limiting the diameter of the possible engines. The A320 was designed when jet bridges were almost universal, and baggage and freight was usually containerized, making it unnecessary to keep the fuselage low to the ground. This makes putting larger diameter engines much easier. So as long as the 737 is competing against the A320 the A320 is going to enjoy a significant, but not overwhelming, advantage.

So why doesn’t Boeing lengthen the 737 landing gear? The problem is that the changes would be so extensive that it would almost certainly require a new certification. The cost would approach that of a clean sheet design.

Boeing really wanted to do a clean sheet design instead of doing the MAX, but their customers were not willing to wait for it. And that is the other problem; not only is the cost of a clean sheet design prohibitive, but so is the time required. Airlines already have to wait at least a year, and usually more, between when they order a new aircraft and when it gets delivered. The time from launch to first delivery of a new type can now be expected to exceed a decade. While this can be managed for a new type, it cannot be as a replacement for the workhorse type of almost all airlines, the single aisle short range airliner. So Boeing is stuck at what is looking more and more like a permanent disadvantage in the narrowbody segment. There are only three possible scenarios I can see that could change that. First, a new material that would save enough weight to get the necessary efficiency improvement to justify the cost independent of engine improvements. I am unaware of any such possibilities on the horizon. Second, a new engine that cannot be retrofitted onto either the 737 or the A320. The only one I am aware of that is being explored is the unducted fan, and I believe that has problems that may not be solveable. The third is that Boeing does what they have done twice before in their history and bet the company on designing and building a new airframe. In the present climate I do not expect them to do that.

One reason that I do not expect them to make that gamble is that while Airbus has an almost insurmountable advantage in the narrowbody segment, Boeing has almost the same advantage in widebodies. The 787 clearly was the right plane for Boeing to build; it has sold and is continuing to sell like hotcakes. The A350, for whatever reason, is not selling well at all in comparison. The A330neo does not appear to be competitive; there is no area that I am aware of where it outperforms the 787. Airbus developed it at a time when Boeing was having massive problems meeting demand for the 787 and Airbus saw a window of opportunity, but that window closed before they could get it certified and into production. Now it sells mainly to airlines who simply do not want the 787, either because they do not want to retrain their personnel, or they do not want to buy from Boeing. But it is never because the A330neo will do the job better or cheaper.

Whethe or not Boeing retains their widebody advantage is going to rest on the performance of the 779. If the A351 can match or beat its economics, then it will likely fail and Airbus will probably achieve parity in the widebody segment. This will be disastrous for Boeing, and will likely lead them to make the massive gamble to develop a new narrowbody. But if it meets expectations and continues to sell reasonably well, I can see a status quo lasting for decades with no new clean sheet designs from either manufacturer, only incremental improvements to their existing models.

Somewhat related; what does Boeing call their future new builds over the next 50 years? Once they have used up the 7XX nomenclature?

I wonder if a Boeing employee is active here on the Airliners.net forum, then we could know more about Boeing and what is going on. Is Boeing really transparent or not?

It is all still unclear what Boeing really plans to do, but they are reorganizing right? But a Boeing 797 will certainly be there, but we do not yet know in what form the Boeing 797 aircraft will take to the air. It's all still rumored, both not off the drawing board.

Boeing’s Calhoun: Be patient for a new airplane

https://leehamnews.com/2023/06/01/boein ... -airplane/

Boeing CEO David Calhoun's comments reported by Leeham make a lot of things being discussed in this thread clearer:

• Tech for engines and airplane itself not ready for a new airplane
• Market for next airplane has got to be big enough to satisfy investors
• NMA was not advanced enough to support its development
• TBW is being worked on but doesn't support a large capacity airplane
• No new airplane till the middle of the 2030s
• Next new airplane won't be based on the NMA's design
• MCAS and COVID were “existential” threats to the company
• China still not taking any MAXes from 2017 onward is a challenge
• 230 MAXes still not delivered, 140 of those were for China
• 90 787s not delivered, will take till end 2024 to deliver both inventories
• China no longer included in future guidance
• C919 is a good airplane but unlikely to hit delivery target of 150/year
• A220-500 doesn’t give him “heartburn”
• Boeing won't recapture a 50/50 market share
• He doesn't feel "disadvantaged" in current airplane competitions

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2023/06/01/boein ... w-airplane

l guess we need change.org petition for Boeing to unpack that tooling. Any volunteers?

flipdewaf wrote:

Isn’t that just a turbo prop?

Fred

And even if an unducted fan is somewhat technologically distinct from a turboprop, passengers will see the blades and think it's an old propeller plane and won't fly that airline again. It'll be a tough sell.

flipdewaf wrote:

Sermons wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

the landing gear would probably have to be longer to accommodate the larger fan engines they would have to carry for a757 sized replacement and even for a 767 sized replacement. it might not be GE90 sized but it will sure be larger than any RB211 or PW2040 in the fan if not the core as well.

“We have a narrowbody engine that has a fan similar to the size of the GE9X.” It’s a narrowbody engine able to move the air the size of an engine on the 777. But there is no casing around it, so it’s not that much bigger in diameter than today’s LEAP, Hegeman said. If you combine it with a core that is the size of a business jet engine, moving the amount of air of a 9X engine but very efficiently with narrowbody level-type thrust. “That is what RISE is.”

https://leehamnews.com/2023/05/30/ponti ... over-time/


I believe the advantage of the RISE , will be the large fan protruding over the wing right?Not sure thou how that will affect the performance of the wing itself but this should reduce landing gear height requements by a non-insignificant amount

Isn’t that just a turbo prop?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uses a fan instead of a prop thou , so yea basically the same principle.

mikejepp wrote:

Boeing makes lots of concepts but the fact stands that they have only developed one all new airliner in the last 29 years. I wouldn't get too excited about computer generated images... they're meant to distract from their inability to create real airplanes.

One could argue that they haven't needed to.

BoatStuck wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Isn’t that just a turbo prop?

Fred

And even if an unducted fan is somewhat technologically distinct from a turboprop, passengers will see the blades and think it's an old propeller plane and won't fly that airline again. It'll be a tough sell.

Hopefully this is said in a sarcastic voice.

Sermons wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Sermons wrote:

“We have a narrowbody engine that has a fan similar to the size of the GE9X.” It’s a narrowbody engine able to move the air the size of an engine on the 777. But there is no casing around it, so it’s not that much bigger in diameter than today’s LEAP, Hegeman said. If you combine it with a core that is the size of a business jet engine, moving the amount of air of a 9X engine but very efficiently with narrowbody level-type thrust. “That is what RISE is.”

https://leehamnews.com/2023/05/30/ponti ... over-time/


I believe the advantage of the RISE , will be the large fan protruding over the wing right?Not sure thou how that will affect the performance of the wing itself but this should reduce landing gear height requements by a non-insignificant amount

Isn’t that just a turbo prop?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uses a fan instead of a prop thou , so yea basically the same principle.

Absolutely, a difference without distinction. I agree with the other poster that the travelling public will be the hardest part here.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

garpd wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

Boeing makes lots of concepts but the fact stands that they have only developed one all new airliner in the last 29 years. I wouldn't get too excited about computer generated images... they're meant to distract from their inability to create real airplanes.

One could argue that they haven't needed to.

Are most of these concepts even officially published by Boeing themselves or are they just fan art?.

Atleast for the TBW concept , they have managed to raise $1.1 billion and that could grow even higher in the next few years with increased spending in R&D. I doubt they are doing this just for the fun of it.

CFM and RR also don't seem to be bluffing with their Next Gen powerplant ambitions.

flipdewaf wrote:

Sermons wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Isn’t that just a turbo prop?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uses a fan instead of a prop thou , so yea basically the same principle.

Absolutely, a difference without distinction. I agree with the other poster that the travelling public will be the hardest part here.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea , until they look at the fares. .

What exactly will be the difference between that and flying the ATR , king air or DH? Have the public ever had any major issues flying those ?

Sermons wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Sermons wrote:

Uses a fan instead of a prop thou , so yea basically the same principle.

Absolutely, a difference without distinction. I agree with the other poster that the travelling public will be the hardest part here.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea , until they look at the fares. .

What exactly will be the difference between that and flying the ATR , king air or DH? Have the public ever had any major issues flying those ?

Yes, there’s a perception of being ‘old fashioned’. The cheaper fares didn’t help compared rot the 50-90 seat RJs either.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chances are Airbus would produce another stretch of the A320 to create an A322 if there was a need for a medium range airplane with more seats than the A321. There is also the possibility of a new, larger composite wing for a future A322 so it could have a range similar to the A321XLR. That means Boeing should target above a possible A322, but below the 787-9 and A330-900 capacity segment.

Something in the capacity range of the 767-400ER, 787-8, A330-200/800 is needed, but with a range performance on par with the 767-300ER, and a much lower weight than the 787-8. It also should look at engines with a 10:1 bypass ratio. Alternatively, an even lower range, lower weight version could be useful for domestic routes. The fact we have a pilot shortage and a stressed ATC system, yet the biggest domestic airplane is around 200 seats means is hard to reconcile. Delta used to use its 764s almost exclusively on domestic routes. It used to service large airports out of Atlanta with the non-ER 763s. I don't doubt both Delta and United wished they had more 757-300s for the denser domestic routes.

Boeing could start with the 787 fuselage, build a new, smaller wing, wing box, and center fuselage, with longer gear, and mate that with a new generation of higher bypass engines, to produce a much lower gross weight "787 Lite".

If Boeing did a 787 derivative to address the 767 transatlantic replacement market, along with premium transcon and Hawaii markets, they could look at a single-aisle airplane for the gap between the 737 MAX 10 and the "787 Lite."

Revelation wrote:

Boeing CEO David Calhoun's comments reported by Leeham make a lot of things being discussed in this thread clearer:

• Tech for engines and airplane itself not ready for a new airplane
• Market for next airplane has got to be big enough to satisfy investors
• NMA was not advanced enough to support its development
• TBW is being worked on but doesn't support a large capacity airplane
• No new airplane till the middle of the 2030s
• Next new airplane won't be based on the NMA's design
• MCAS and COVID were “existential” threats to the company
• China still not taking any MAXes from 2017 onward is a challenge
• 230 MAXes still not delivered, 140 of those were for China
• 90 787s not delivered, will take till end 2024 to deliver both inventories
• China no longer included in future guidance
• C919 is a good airplane but unlikely to hit delivery target of 150/year
• A220-500 doesn’t give him “heartburn”
• Boeing won't recapture a 50/50 market share
• He doesn't feel "disadvantaged" in current airplane competitions

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2023/06/01/boein ... w-airplane

Calhoun already spoke those points before, but you really don't know what the future will look like after 2030. At least Boeing can replace its CEO earlier if things go wrong again and in my opinion Calhoun has already given up the battle with Airbus! I see that in him as a weak CEO of a big company!

Anyway, Airbus is gaining more and more ground from Boeing, it seems, but Boeing has made a lot of mess in recent years.

However, we have not come out of the corona pandemic well, both a lot of problems caused by lack of supplies and everything that has been going against us all.

A future CEO of Boeing will have to take a different approach with possibly good plans that are feasible. A new aircraft type is very much needed for strict environmental regulations. CO2 emissions and noise nuisance. Because I still see Boeing falling short in the medium-haul aircraft market, which is now also Airbus A321NEO very popular with many airlines.

I also wonder why Boeing didn't continue developing new Boeing 797s. It's also a missed opportunity, but an airplane always depends on engine manufacturers like Pratt Withney or Rolls Royce. An engine CFM LEAP 1 or another version of LEAP could be quite suitable for a new Boeing 797. However, a MOM aircraft requires a heavier engine and a take-off weight of 95,000 to 105,000 kg. With extra kerosene tanks or hydrogen tanks on board. Boeing should have known better that many airlines would buy Boeing 797s instead of Airbus A321NEO-LR/XLR.

SEPilot wrote:

Boeing really wanted to do a clean sheet design instead of doing the MAX, but their customers were not willing to wait for it. And that is the other problem; not only is the cost of a clean sheet design prohibitive, but so is the time required. Airlines already have to wait at least a year, and usually more, between when they order a new aircraft and when it gets delivered. The time from launch to first delivery of a new type can now be expected to exceed a decade. While this can be managed for a new type, it cannot be as a replacement for the workhorse type of almost all airlines, the single aisle short range airliner. such possibilities on the horizon.

Why can't airline's wait?

Aircraft types don't fly forever and they have to be replaced. What are they going to do when Boeing replaces the 737?
Switch to A320s which would cost billions and whilst going through the transition process Boeings replacement aircraft would have entered service.

This is the miscalculation that Boeing made. All those years ago.

SEPilot wrote:

The third is that Boeing does what they have done twice before in their history and bet the company on designing and building a new airframe. In the present climate I do not expect them to do that

Honestly I don't think that they have a choice.

The 737 MAX is a passable aircraft but it is not a futureproof one. Boeing will either have to replace it or ultimately they'll exit the single aisle market entirely.

SEPilot wrote:

One reason that I do not expect them to make that gamble is that while Airbus has an almost insurmountable advantage in the narrowbody segment, Boeing has almost the same advantage in widebodies. The 787 clearly was the right plane for Boeing to build; it has sold and is continuing to sell like hotcakes. The A350, for whatever reason, is not selling well at all in comparison. The A330neo does not appear to be competitive; there is no area that I am aware of where it outperforms the 787. Airbus developed it at a time when Boeing was having massive problems meeting demand for the 787 and Airbus saw a window of opportunity, but that window closed before they could get it certified and into production. Now it sells mainly to airlines who simply do not want the 787, either because they do not want to retrain their personnel, or they do not want to buy from Boeing. But it is never because the A330neo will do the job better or cheaper.

Agree with you here entirely, the 787 has sold extremely welll and it's replacement market is setting up to be more 787s be they existing generation or a re-engine.

Airbus will need a clean sheet to beat it.

The time for Airbus to do that is now in my opinion. Have an aircraft ready for when the 787s replacement market really gets going.

However if Airbus don't move then Boeing don't really have to do much the dreamliner and they'll continue to have dominance in this segment.

Revelation wrote:

Boeing CEO David Calhoun's comments reported by Leeham make a lot of things being discussed in this thread clearer:

• Tech for engines and airplane itself not ready for a new airplane
• Market for next airplane has got to be big enough to satisfy investors
• NMA was not advanced enough to support its development
• TBW is being worked on but doesn't support a large capacity airplane
• No new airplane till the middle of the 2030s
• Next new airplane won't be based on the NMA's design
• MCAS and COVID were “existential” threats to the company
• China still not taking any MAXes from 2017 onward is a challenge
• 230 MAXes still not delivered, 140 of those were for China
• 90 787s not delivered, will take till end 2024 to deliver both inventories
• China no longer included in future guidance
• C919 is a good airplane but unlikely to hit delivery target of 150/year
• A220-500 doesn’t give him “heartburn”
• Boeing won't recapture a 50/50 market share
• He doesn't feel "disadvantaged" in current airplane competitions

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2023/06/01/boein ... w-airplane

Not much news here but all the points made by Calhoun are fair.
As much as the NMA would have served select markets very well. A project like that would have sold in very good numbers as part of a variant in a larger familly. As a standalone product it's success would be a lot more uncertain.

The 757 has still never been replaced by Boeing or by anyone really. The A321xlr has the capacity but lacks the payload.
Technology has come far enough for the 737 and 757s mission profiles to be covered by a single product. This is likely what the 797 will be. However this causes an issue at the smaller end of the scale.

For an aircraft to do this would create a lot of built in weight to the airframe.
This of course would create issues at the lower end of the capacity scale. As it will exacerbate the weight issues that shrinks have.

The MAX 7 has sold 286 frames per wikipedia the vast majority to Southwest. Not numbers but it's hardly a runaway sucess.
This raises the question of whether a 797 would even have a variant in this size category.

Funnily enough a potential solution to this problem is mentioned in this article.

A joint venture with Embraer. It would get Embraer an aircraft capable of meeting the A220 in size.
And it would shiled Boeing from an A220-500 having complete dominance over this segment.

Given the messy ongoing divorce between the two companies this is not likely to happen.

Boeing has the chance to regain it's 50/50 market share but not in this generation.
Of course this will only be possible if this industry stays as duopoly.

Bombardier tried to push into it, they made a brilliant aircraft but poor project management almost killed the company.

The MC-21 was never going to see massive adoption, but it could have at least flown into the western world and who knows maybe a few adhoc charter carriers or the small cargo airlines may have picked up a few frames.

The C919 is a learning curve for China. It won't break the duopoly but it's sucessor might make a dent if it gets the necessary certicifations.

The CR929 if it comes to be will likely be even less sucessful than the C919 if it follows a similar trajectory.

Then there's Embraer. They have the technical skill but neither the funding nor resources to pull of a programme of the magnitude necerssary to disrupt Airbus and Boeing atleast not on their own.
With a partner then it's not impossible.

The biggest threat to Boeing isn't Airbus in my opinion it's Lockheed.
With Airbus being the only real competitor Boeing will survive. Hypothetically. Airbus outsells Boeings narrowbodies 70% to 30% then that's still thousands of frames for Boeing.

However of Lockheed who have the finances and the resources to take on the duopoly then Boeing could be in real trouble.

Airbus has government backing and Europe won't let it fall. Boeing doesn't have such a strong safety net.

This is just for the narrowbody market however. Personally I believe that widebodies including the 777-9 Boeing's in a pretty strong position.

Irrespective of this Boeing needs to time it's products right.

SEPilot wrote:

The fundamental dilemma still remains, and that is that the cost of developing a clean sheet new design is so mind-bogglingly massive that the performance improvement has to be really substantial in order to justify it.

Even bigger roadblock is the cost and time to certify is really an unknown. A relatively simple variant, the A321XLR which is primarily fitting in an added center wing tank was launched at Paris 19, it's coming up to Paris 23 and it is not certified yet. That is an EASA certification which has had far less change than the FAA. Boeing has the Max 7, Max 10, 779, and 778F all in process for the certification, but the process at the FAA is being totally rewritten and there don't seem to be time lines. All discussed to death here on A.net, but for a company to estimate the time and cost to certify today - is it 5 years and $ 15B for a new clean sheet or 15 years and $ 40B. Unable to predict, unable to proceed!

On the engine front, do we plan for kerosene as the fuel, some new synthetic fuel that has 20% more energy per pound, SAF fuels, Hydrogen. What will be the energy standards, efficiency standards, airport constraints, etc. Is pollution increasing or reducing, what will those coatings in the engine need to resist.

Boeing has issues with the T-7 trainer right now, a big part is the ejection seat. Between bid and now it has been decided to make it work with a much larger proportion of the population. Are similar out there for commercial cabins, will the future regulations require accommodating 50 lb bigger persons, or similar.

One item for the manufacturer's is automation - are we going to be with single pilot planes in 10 years, or is it 25 years. It's coming but no one knows.

Aviation is not particularly profitable of an industry at the moment. That will need to change before a new clean sheet appears.

Berven1 wrote:

Calhoun already spoke those points before, but you really don't know what the future will look like after 2030. At least Boeing can replace its CEO earlier if things go wrong again and in my opinion Calhoun has already given up the battle with Airbus! I see that in him as a weak CEO of a big company!

Anyway, Airbus is gaining more and more ground from Boeing, it seems, but Boeing has made a lot of mess in recent years.

However, we have not come out of the corona pandemic well, both a lot of problems caused by lack of supplies and everything that has been going against us all.

A future CEO of Boeing will have to take a different approach with possibly good plans that are feasible. A new aircraft type is very much needed for strict environmental regulations. CO2 emissions and noise nuisance. Because I still see Boeing falling short in the medium-haul aircraft market, which is now also Airbus A321NEO very popular with many airlines.

I also wonder why Boeing didn't continue developing new Boeing 797s. It's also a missed opportunity, but an airplane always depends on engine manufacturers like Pratt Withney or Rolls Royce. An engine CFM LEAP 1 or another version of LEAP could be quite suitable for a new Boeing 797. However, a MOM aircraft requires a heavier engine and a take-off weight of 95,000 to 105,000 kg. With extra kerosene tanks or hydrogen tanks on board. Boeing should have known better that many airlines would buy Boeing 797s instead of Airbus A321NEO-LR/XLR.

I agree we can't have a lot of visibility into the future, but I'm pretty confident this is the same guidance he's giving the BoD and since they haven't run him out of town nor has there been a stockholder revolt so I think it is more or less the story. He's also talking to leadership at the engine makers and I can imagine they aren't pressing for a new airplane before the mid 30s either. They're all still licking their wounds from both COVID and recent program issues (T1000, GTF, GE9X). I'm sure they just want to put some hay in the barn right about now.

I know people here compare A to B, but IMO Boeing is really more focused on how much profit it can make. That's why his statements included the point that the investors have to be on board with a new airplane program too. They won't move just to fill a perceived hole in their product portfolio, they'll move when they think they can make a solid profit off a new airplane program.

flipdewaf wrote:

Sermons wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Absolutely, a difference without distinction. I agree with the other poster that the travelling public will be the hardest part here.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea , until they look at the fares. .

What exactly will be the difference between that and flying the ATR , king air or DH? Have the public ever had any major issues flying those ?

Yes, there’s a perception of being ‘old fashioned’. The cheaper fares didn’t help compared rot the 50-90 seat RJs either.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well they were noisy and slow , According to CFM their new engine should be as quiet or quieter than the current LEAPs . Mach 0.8 to 0.85 should also be possible unlike the slower speeds of a Turboprop... I don't know how that could be a hard sell..So basically this engine tries to eliminate the draw backs associated with props and earlier openfan designs, decades ago. I think it should be given a chance to prove itself

Berven1 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Boeing CEO David Calhoun's comments reported by Leeham make a lot of things being discussed in this thread clearer:

• Tech for engines and airplane itself not ready for a new airplane
• Market for next airplane has got to be big enough to satisfy investors
• NMA was not advanced enough to support its development
• TBW is being worked on but doesn't support a large capacity airplane
• No new airplane till the middle of the 2030s
• Next new airplane won't be based on the NMA's design
• MCAS and COVID were “existential” threats to the company
• China still not taking any MAXes from 2017 onward is a challenge
• 230 MAXes still not delivered, 140 of those were for China
• 90 787s not delivered, will take till end 2024 to deliver both inventories
• China no longer included in future guidance
• C919 is a good airplane but unlikely to hit delivery target of 150/year
• A220-500 doesn’t give him “heartburn”
• Boeing won't recapture a 50/50 market share
• He doesn't feel "disadvantaged" in current airplane competitions

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2023/06/01/boein ... w-airplane

Calhoun already spoke those points before, but you really don't know what the future will look like after 2030. At least Boeing can replace its CEO earlier if things go wrong again and in my opinion Calhoun has already given up the battle with Airbus! I see that in him as a weak CEO of a big company!

Anyway, Airbus is gaining more and more ground from Boeing, it seems, but Boeing has made a lot of mess in recent years.

However, we have not come out of the corona pandemic well, both a lot of problems caused by lack of supplies and everything that has been going against us all.

A future CEO of Boeing will have to take a different approach with possibly good plans that are feasible. A new aircraft type is very much needed for strict environmental regulations. CO2 emissions and noise nuisance. Because I still see Boeing falling short in the medium-haul aircraft market, which is now also Airbus A321NEO very popular with many airlines.

I also wonder why Boeing didn't continue developing new Boeing 797s. It's also a missed opportunity, but an airplane always depends on engine manufacturers like Pratt Withney or Rolls Royce. An engine CFM LEAP 1 or another version of LEAP could be quite suitable for a new Boeing 797. However, a MOM aircraft requires a heavier engine and a take-off weight of 95,000 to 105,000 kg. With extra kerosene tanks or hydrogen tanks on board. Boeing should have known better that many airlines would buy Boeing 797s instead of Airbus A321NEO-LR/XLR.

Maybe I am the only one who likes Calhoun . Let's be honest many of you didn't fancy him from the first day and I doubt there is anything he can do to change your minds .

We can all agree that regardless of CEO , Boeing was never in the best position to launch a jet in the past few years even today. Until Boeing gets its act together , resolves it's current issues , pushes the MAX 10/7 , 777-9 out the certification door, clears the large 250+ 737/787 inventory, works out its KC46 program .e.t.c I don't think rushing for a new jet would make any sense.

Why rush after a niche while your current lineup is in disarray? Why risk what you already have to chase after something that might not even be guaranteed a success? The MOM is a hit or miss , if I were CEO I would be willing to rush many other things but not this segment. Never

I think the MAX 10 is so underrated , I find it funny how many pretend like it's not even there when talking about the a321neo yet it has reached almost 1000 orders.
The MAX10 was launched around the time the a321neo EIS , so ofcourse the latter will have over a thousand more orders.

The MAX 10 is a competitor to the base a321neo which currently accounts for majority of the family sales , not the XLR and despite its inferior range I think it has done very well so far. I see the MAX 10 hitting 2000+ orders someday and unlike the NMA it's a guaranteed success with little investment..

If Boeing could manage to give it a range boost to atleast 4000nmi or slightly more then they would have closed in on the XLR/LR without the expensive risk of a new jet...many here say Is impossible because the airframe is " very limited " lol , it's just not priority now but I think it's possible .

Regarding Airbus gaining more ground , yes in the past few years but not at the moment. Airbus has its a321neo family jets sold out till 2029 , and I can promise you as long as the a220-500 is not not there it will be Boeing gaining more ground. Of course things won't go back to 50-50 anytime soon , but currently, Boeing's ealier delivery slots will be their biggest advantage and help them chip away a little market share back to themselves.

So yes currently Airbus is not gaining any ground until maybe the a220-500 joins the party but that is years from now.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Aviation is not particularly profitable of an industry at the moment. That will need to change before a new clean sheet appears.

100%

Sermons wrote:

Chemist wrote:

What happened to the concept?
Well, Boeing had the MAX, the inability to make 787s reliably, the inability to make 737s reliably, the inability to get the 777-X certified in any reasonable time, the inability to get the 737-10 and -7 certified in any reasonable time, and the inability to develop a space capsule to carry people without overrunning by years and years. And those are just the problems I'm aware of, I believe they also have issues in their military aircraft. So their ability to execute, and their financials, are severely compromised. So I wouldn't expect a 797 anytime soon.

I don't think anyone here expects the 797 anytime soon (before 2030) atleast with regards to the EIS. The launch could be anywhere between 2025-2030 thou depending on Boeing's state by then ( financially or product wise. ).

If some of those issues you mentioned are resolved sooner , with certification of the MAX10, 777-9 , MAX7 achieved before 2026 and rework of the 787 completed by that same time, then Boeing is free to start working towards the launch, dev and eventual entry into service of the 797 .

Oh and BTW, as of today they have announced an indefinite delay of the first manned Starliner flight originally scheduled this summer after years of delays, due to parachute problems and flammable tape insulation problems:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/06/b ... -problems/

Boeing appears to be nearly failed in its ability to execute a program successfully and reasonably on time and budget, since the 777 days.

Chemist wrote:

Sermons wrote:

Chemist wrote:

What happened to the concept?
Well, Boeing had the MAX, the inability to make 787s reliably, the inability to make 737s reliably, the inability to get the 777-X certified in any reasonable time, the inability to get the 737-10 and -7 certified in any reasonable time, and the inability to develop a space capsule to carry people without overrunning by years and years. And those are just the problems I'm aware of, I believe they also have issues in their military aircraft. So their ability to execute, and their financials, are severely compromised. So I wouldn't expect a 797 anytime soon.

I don't think anyone here expects the 797 anytime soon (before 2030) atleast with regards to the EIS. The launch could be anywhere between 2025-2030 thou depending on Boeing's state by then ( financially or product wise. ).

If some of those issues you mentioned are resolved sooner , with certification of the MAX10, 777-9 , MAX7 achieved before 2026 and rework of the 787 completed by that same time, then Boeing is free to start working towards the launch, dev and eventual entry into service of the 797 .

Oh and BTW, as of today they have announced an indefinite delay of the first manned Starliner flight originally scheduled this summer after years of delays, due to parachute problems and flammable tape insulation problems:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/06/b ... -problems/

Boeing appears to be nearly failed in its ability to execute a program successfully and reasonably on time and budget, since the 777 days.

. Totally forgot about that too. So much work ahead for Calhoun and his company

Yakflyer wrote:

I personally think Boeing is waiting now to see how well the their joint project with NASA for the Transonic Truss-Braced Wing concept performs in testing. If the testing goes as hoped and they can get a new clean sheet plane to market in ten years, this is where I think they are heading.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa ... -of-future

Earlier in this thread I made the above comments. From today's Aviation Week I see where Calhoun embraced the truss-braced wing design on May 30th. An excerpt below. Don't miss the forest for the trees.


NORTH CHARLESTON, South Carolina—Boeing’s commercial aircraft development efforts are focused on emerging airframe technologies, such as the truss-braced wing concept and more autonomy, that could lead to a new aircraft available starting in 2035, the company’s President and CEO Dave Calhoun said May 30.

“We have a real shot at that technology,” Calhoun told reporters during briefings at Boeing’s North Charleston facility. He was referring to the truss-braced wing aircraft architecture the company is jointly exploring with NASA. “By 2028, hopefully we will know whether it works,” he said. Calhoun made clear that there are many more technologies the company has begun to explore as it begins to define what its next aircraft could look like. The aircraft should be “something as close to autonomous as we can get to,” he said, emphasizing that Boeing has no plans to “go back to the new mid-market airplane design.” He stressed that “the truss-braced wing is an important technology.”

Whether a new aircraft would be a single-aisle or a widebody design, “that is a decision for later,” Calhoun said. “You have to be patient.”

JayinKitsap wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

The fundamental dilemma still remains, and that is that the cost of developing a clean sheet new design is so mind-bogglingly massive that the performance improvement has to be really substantial in order to justify it.

Even bigger roadblock is the cost and time to certify is really an unknown. A relatively simple variant, the A321XLR which is primarily fitting in an added center wing tank was launched at Paris 19, it's coming up to Paris 23 and it is not certified yet. That is an EASA certification which has had far less change than the FAA. Boeing has the Max 7, Max 10, 779, and 778F all in process for the certification, but the process at the FAA is being totally rewritten and there don't seem to be time lines. All discussed to death here on A.net, but for a company to estimate the time and cost to certify today - is it 5 years and $ 15B for a new clean sheet or 15 years and $ 40B. Unable to predict, unable to proceed!

On the engine front, do we plan for kerosene as the fuel, some new synthetic fuel that has 20% more energy per pound, SAF fuels, Hydrogen. What will be the energy standards, efficiency standards, airport constraints, etc. Is pollution increasing or reducing, what will those coatings in the engine need to resist.

Boeing has issues with the T-7 trainer right now, a big part is the ejection seat. Between bid and now it has been decided to make it work with a much larger proportion of the population. Are similar out there for commercial cabins, will the future regulations require accommodating 50 lb bigger persons, or similar.

One item for the manufacturer's is automation - are we going to be with single pilot planes in 10 years, or is it 25 years. It's coming but no one knows.

Aviation is not particularly profitable of an industry at the moment. That will need to change before a new clean sheet appears.

Despite Elon Musk's bloviating that Full Self Driving will be coming next year, I think it really will happen and a lot sooner that most commentators think. The effect this will have on mass transportation for distances all the way from your door step to 500+ miles away will be greater than that from horses to the Model T. Underestimated and unappreciated is a solution taking place and seldom noted. The Interstate System and additional State highways meeting the same standards (with no grade crossings) is a piece of infrastructure capable of delivering the next generation of travel.

Revelation wrote:

Boeing CEO David Calhoun's comments reported by Leeham make a lot of things being discussed in this thread clearer:

• Tech for engines and airplane itself not ready for a new airplane
• Market for next airplane has got to be big enough to satisfy investors
• NMA was not advanced enough to support its development
• TBW is being worked on but doesn't support a large capacity airplane
• No new airplane till the middle of the 2030s
• Next new airplane won't be based on the NMA's design
• MCAS and COVID were “existential” threats to the company
• China still not taking any MAXes from 2017 onward is a challenge
• 230 MAXes still not delivered, 140 of those were for China
• 90 787s not delivered, will take till end 2024 to deliver both inventories
• China no longer included in future guidance
• C919 is a good airplane but unlikely to hit delivery target of 150/year
• A220-500 doesn’t give him “heartburn”
• Boeing won't recapture a 50/50 market share
• He doesn't feel "disadvantaged" in current airplane competitions

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2023/06/01/boein ... w-airplane

On one hand I find Calhoun's leadership weak, but on the other hand he has inherited quite a messy Boeing. Almost all programs are in a bad state, there is no R&D project that gives him hope as R&D expenditure was and is reduced significantly.
Previously he was talking about the T7 design and production program but now not even a word on that as it seems that the tech is not mature enough or not fit at all. Truss brced wing is also down played as maybe it works maybe it doesn't. So, all responsibility is on the engine makers. Which are in a sore state and does not give an unique advantage to Boeing. Rock and hard place...

Sermons wrote:

Berven1 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Boeing CEO David Calhoun's comments reported by Leeham make a lot of things being discussed in this thread clearer:

• Tech for engines and airplane itself not ready for a new airplane
• Market for next airplane has got to be big enough to satisfy investors
• NMA was not advanced enough to support its development
• TBW is being worked on but doesn't support a large capacity airplane
• No new airplane till the middle of the 2030s
• Next new airplane won't be based on the NMA's design
• MCAS and COVID were “existential” threats to the company
• China still not taking any MAXes from 2017 onward is a challenge
• 230 MAXes still not delivered, 140 of those were for China
• 90 787s not delivered, will take till end 2024 to deliver both inventories
• China no longer included in future guidance
• C919 is a good airplane but unlikely to hit delivery target of 150/year
• A220-500 doesn’t give him “heartburn”
• Boeing won't recapture a 50/50 market share
• He doesn't feel "disadvantaged" in current airplane competitions

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2023/06/01/boein ... w-airplane

Calhoun already spoke those points before, but you really don't know what the future will look like after 2030. At least Boeing can replace its CEO earlier if things go wrong again and in my opinion Calhoun has already given up the battle with Airbus! I see that in him as a weak CEO of a big company!

Anyway, Airbus is gaining more and more ground from Boeing, it seems, but Boeing has made a lot of mess in recent years.

However, we have not come out of the corona pandemic well, both a lot of problems caused by lack of supplies and everything that has been going against us all.

A future CEO of Boeing will have to take a different approach with possibly good plans that are feasible. A new aircraft type is very much needed for strict environmental regulations. CO2 emissions and noise nuisance. Because I still see Boeing falling short in the medium-haul aircraft market, which is now also Airbus A321NEO very popular with many airlines.

I also wonder why Boeing didn't continue developing new Boeing 797s. It's also a missed opportunity, but an airplane always depends on engine manufacturers like Pratt Withney or Rolls Royce. An engine CFM LEAP 1 or another version of LEAP could be quite suitable for a new Boeing 797. However, a MOM aircraft requires a heavier engine and a take-off weight of 95,000 to 105,000 kg. With extra kerosene tanks or hydrogen tanks on board. Boeing should have known better that many airlines would buy Boeing 797s instead of Airbus A321NEO-LR/XLR.

Maybe I am the only one who likes Calhoun . Let's be honest many of you didn't fancy him from the first day and I doubt there is anything he can do to change your minds .

We can all agree that regardless of CEO , Boeing was never in the best position to launch a jet in the past few years even today. Until Boeing gets its act together , resolves it's current issues , pushes the MAX 10/7 , 777-9 out the certification door, clears the large 250+ 737/787 inventory, works out its KC46 program .e.t.c I don't think rushing for a new jet would make any sense.

Why rush after a niche while your current lineup is in disarray? Why risk what you already have to chase after something that might not even be guaranteed a success? The MOM is a hit or miss , if I were CEO I would be willing to rush many other things but not this segment. Never

I think the MAX 10 is so underrated , I find it funny how many pretend like it's not even there when talking about the a321neo yet it has reached almost 1000 orders.
The MAX10 was launched around the time the a321neo EIS , so ofcourse the latter will have over a thousand more orders.

The MAX 10 is a competitor to the base a321neo which currently accounts for majority of the family sales , not the XLR and despite its inferior range I think it has done very well so far. I see the MAX 10 hitting 2000+ orders someday and unlike the NMA it's a guaranteed success with little investment..

If Boeing could manage to give it a range boost to atleast 4000nmi or slightly more then they would have closed in on the XLR/LR without the expensive risk of a new jet...many here say Is impossible because the airframe is " very limited " lol , it's just not priority now but I think it's possible .

Regarding Airbus gaining more ground , yes in the past few years but not at the moment. Airbus has its a321neo family jets sold out till 2029 , and I can promise you as long as the a220-500 is not not there it will be Boeing gaining more ground. Of course things won't go back to 50-50 anytime soon , but currently, Boeing's ealier delivery slots will be their biggest advantage and help them chip away a little market share back to themselves.

So yes currently Airbus is not gaining any ground until maybe the a220-500 joins the party but that is years from now.

I don't think people have any concept how much TIME and more importantly MONEY it takes to develop a new aircraft. And yet many want Boeing to "do something" just because. Yeah, lets drop 10 t0 15 Billion just because. The present products are selling and Airbus and Boeing who have dropped major coin on new products at the beginning of the century are in the mood to recoup and enjoy the rewards. No new product for at least 10 years from either Airbus or Boeing. Just variants.

Chemist wrote:

Boeing appears to be nearly failed in its ability to execute a program successfully and reasonably on time and budget, since the 777 days.

777 was more-or-less on time but its budget was blown, it cost twice as much to develop as was expected. The point is that this stuff is hard.

william wrote:

I don't think people have any concept how much TIME and more importantly MONEY it takes to develop a new aircraft. And yet many want Boeing to "do something" just because. Yeah, lets drop 10 t0 15 Billion just because. The present products are selling and Airbus and Boeing who have dropped major coin on new products at the beginning of the century are in the mood to recoup and enjoy the rewards. No new product for at least 10 years from either Airbus or Boeing. Just variants.

I agree, but I also think the money needed to do a clean sheet in today's environment is probably more like $30B rather than $10B-$15B.

What we have for data on 787:

A conservative estimate by The Seattle Times puts Boeing’s total investment on the program so far at more than $32 billion.

That massive sum, half spent on development costs and half on manufacturing the jets already built, means profitability for the plane won’t come before well into the 2020s — if ever.

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... 2-billion/

So $16B spent in early 2000s dollars just by Boeing, never mind GE or RR. Note this was at the time of the first 787 being delivered to ANA, so the battery crisis hadn't yet added itself to the R&D bills at that point in time.

Now we're saying the new airplane needs to be good enough to make the current ones obsolete, presumably needs a totally new approach to cockpit design (high level of automation with AI and/or remote control capability for eventual reduced crew operation), probably needs a new approach to structures (like TBW), probably needs a new approach to engines (like UDF), definitely will get detailed regulatory scrutiny with pretty much zero 'grandfathering', and it's gonna be a massive program.

There may have been a time window where Boeing could have launched MOM/NMA with a lot of technology reuse / grandfathering from 787 and LEAP, but those days are gone. Now they can't even get MAX7 through the approval cycle without years of work. Yes, I know that is because of their own MCAS debacle/disaster, but regardless there is a new reality to be dealt with.

Revelation wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Boeing appears to be nearly failed in its ability to execute a program successfully and reasonably on time and budget, since the 777 days.

777 was more-or-less on time but its budget was blown, it cost twice as much to develop as was expected. The point is that this stuff is hard.

william wrote:

I don't think people have any concept how much TIME and more importantly MONEY it takes to develop a new aircraft. And yet many want Boeing to "do something" just because. Yeah, lets drop 10 t0 15 Billion just because. The present products are selling and Airbus and Boeing who have dropped major coin on new products at the beginning of the century are in the mood to recoup and enjoy the rewards. No new product for at least 10 years from either Airbus or Boeing. Just variants.

I agree, but I also think the money needed to do a clean sheet in today's environment is probably more like $30B rather than $10B-$15B.

What we have for data on 787:

A conservative estimate by The Seattle Times puts Boeing’s total investment on the program so far at more than $32 billion.

That massive sum, half spent on development costs and half on manufacturing the jets already built, means profitability for the plane won’t come before well into the 2020s — if ever.

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... 2-billion/

So $16B spent in early 2000s dollars just by Boeing, never mind GE or RR. Note this was at the time of the first 787 being delivered to ANA, so the battery crisis hadn't yet added itself to the R&D bills at that point in time.

Now we're saying the new airplane needs to be good enough to make the current ones obsolete, presumably needs a totally new approach to cockpit design (high level of automation with AI and/or remote control capability for eventual reduced crew operation), probably needs a new approach to structures (like TBW), probably needs a new approach to engines (like UDF), definitely will get detailed regulatory scrutiny with pretty much zero 'grandfathering', and it's gonna be a massive program.

There may have been a time window where Boeing could have launched MOM/NMA with a lot of technology reuse / grandfathering from 787 and LEAP, but those days are gone. Now they can't even get MAX7 through the approval cycle without years of work. Yes, I know that is because of their own MCAS debacle/disaster, but regardless there is a new reality to be dealt with.

Indeed, the amount of "inherited" risk/costs a new program has for both A&B are immense. A lot of new stuff; propulsion, cockpit, materials, fuels/battery, shape of wings, materials.

I think the last successful clean sheet was the A350 and that one was close to $20B, just accounting for inflation we are talking about $30B. Add in the new stuff and you are probably talking about a minimum of $40B.

From a business perspective Boeing and Airbus have no choice but to wait until engine provides an opportunity for bigger gains to ensure that the development costs can be recouped by charging a higher price for the customer...

Revelation wrote:

Boeing CEO David Calhoun's comments reported by Leeham make a lot of things being discussed in this thread clearer:

• A220-500 doesn’t give him “heartburn”

Even if it did, I wouldn't expect him to admit it publicly. After all, Boeing also (publicly) thought they had nothing to worry about with the NEO as it was supposedly Airbus' attempt at playing catch-up to the NG. 10+ years later, and we can see what a brilliant statement that was.

Boeing won't recapture a 50/50 market share

I am surprised at this admission though, I thought they'd still be putting on a brave face in public at least.

He doesn't feel "disadvantaged" in current airplane competitions

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2023/06/01/boein ... w-airplane

I mean yeah, considering we've now seen that Boeing are willing to discount to win orders (something this site told me was Airbus' forte- they practically give their planes away, y'know), what do they have to feel disadvantaged about?

JonesNL wrote:

. So, all responsibility is on the engine makers. Which are in a sore state and does not give an unique advantage to Boeing. Rock and hard place...

OEMs have shared the same engine technologies , suppliers , wing configurations for decades yet market share has not been evenly distributed because of that. Having access to the same engine/ wing tech does not guarantee the same level of success and it never will. So Even if Airbus and Boeing use the same engine for their next aircrft design , one will still dominate the other.